Pages

google analytics

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

I should begin by saying that I like the book attributed to the 8th
century BC prophet, Micah; some of the passages that I find most inspiring come
from his writings. His vision of a time when people will “hammer their swords
into plowshares” and give up warring (4: 3), along with his description of what
it means to truly follow God: “to do justice, and to love kindness” (6:8) –
these words continue to motivate me.

But the more I explore the words of the prophet Micah, the more difficulty I
have. It is easy to appreciate these words in an abstract sense, removed from their
context, but a text stripped of its context is all but meaningless. Without
context a passage is malleable, and can be beaten into the shape of any
argument, without regard for the original intent.

And for the prophet Micah, context is difficult to demonstrate. The opinion of
biblical scholars on what parts of the book are from the mouth of the prophet,
and which parts may be from later editors and redactors is divided. Most
scholars agree that chapters 1 – 3 are from the prophet, but very little of
chapters 4 -7 are attributed to him. (Simundson 535) The difficulty, then, is
to locate a historical period in which to find context for the chapters in
question. And there, too, opinion is divided; suggestions range from the time
of Hezekiah (and the prophet Micah) to the Maccabean period.

And if the difficulties of locating a historical context weren’t difficult
enough alone, the Hebrew text of Micah is a mess. “Although many of the
passages present no textual difficulties or only trifling problems, others are
badly, perhaps hopelessly, corrupt” (Hillers 809).

Reading Micah is much more difficult than is usually appreciated, especially
during this Advent / Christmas season.

One of the lectionary readings for this Sunday is that famous passage from
Micah 5: 2 (or 5:1 depending on which translation you use, another source of
difficulty in this book).

“And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath,
least among the clans of Judah,
from you one shall come forth
to rule Israel for Me -
one whose origin is from old,
from ancient times.”
(Micah 5:1 JPS)

This verse has become a treasured verse for Christians at Christmastime because
of its quotation by chief priests and scribes in response to the magi’s
question in Matthew’s gospel (Matthew 2: 2 – 6). But Matthew’s citation of this
verse does just what we don’t want to do: it strips the words from their
context. And, even though it is a treasured verse, part of a beloved story, we
should ask-does Matthew’s use of the verse from Micah fit the context of the
original passage? If we are willing to read carefully and critically we’ll
probably conclude that, no, Matthew has not followed the context of Micah’s
words (whether these are from Micah himself or from a later redactor or editor).

“No other chapter in scripture has been more abused by its friends than this.
It is one of the scriptural sources of the Messianic hope that was to loom so
large in post exilic Judaism. The tradition that Jesus came in fulfillment of
this and other prophecies was so early and so deep a part of Christian
tradition that it wrote itself into the Gospels…It is hard to believe that
anyone who had actually read this chapter carefully could think it had any
reference at all to the coming of Jesus Christ. There is little or nothing in
common between its central theme and anything he did or said. Actually the
gospel records claim only that Bethlehem was the ordained birthplace of the one
who was to be ruler in Israel. Once they have ‘established’ that by referencing
vs. 2, they walk straight away from everything else in the chapter” (Bosley
930-1).

To put the passage back into context somewhat, we should go back and read
through chapter 4. This long expected ruler would come during a time of great
calamity and distress, during desecration and destruction, during a great siege
by the Assyrians. And during this time the ruler of Israel would be struck on
the cheek with a rod. (Micah 4:14)

In response to this the ruler, coming from the humble village of Bethlehem,
would rise to power, bringing peace and security. He along with “seven
shepherds” and “eight princes” (5: 4) will take the war to the Assyrians. They will
invade Assyria and “shepherd Assyria with the sword, the country of Nimrod with
the naked blade” (5: 5 NJB).

But does this sound like Jesus? Did Jesus, who was struck and beaten, disgraced
by his enemies, take up swords and naked blades to make them pay for their insults
and their abuse? Did he make peace by making war?

The more I read of Micah, the more I’m convinced that Matthew used the verse as
a proof-text without regard for the context. And I don’t quite know what to do
with this. “To lift this prophecy out of history…is to defy the historical
element in the prophets. Yet, to obscure the Messianic thrust … is tantamount
to defying the divine plan for Israel and the world” (Bullock 120-1).

StatCounter

sound cloud

vimeo

Total Pageviews

Copyright Notice

The artwork and music published on this blog are copyright 2010 - 2018 by Thatjeffcarter was here. All rights reserved. But I could be persuaded to let you use them. Contact me for permissions. "The views, comments, statements and opinions expressed on this Web site do not necessarily represent the official position of The Salvation Army." I am no longer with the Salvation Army, anyway.